I’m not talking about the small, “strategic nukes” we’ve developed. I’m referring to the big, super-megaton nukes developed during the cold war. Seeing how we’re hyper-conscientious about minimizing civilian casualties nowadays, I’m trying to visualize a war-time situation where such a big “boom” would be necessary.
Well, enormous nukes were never really necessary for converting cities to glass-lined craters–while that would have enormous strategic advantages, remember, the world was embroiled in an ideological war between the USSR and the US, and it simply wouldn’t do to be seen as a mass murderer when you were trying to win friends. The main rationale behind the nuclear arsenals of the respective nations were to prevent the other side from using their nukes. Mutually Assured Destruction–you shoot, I shoot back. It’s a lot more threatening if you’re brandishing a grenade launcher than a BB gun.
The small nukes are “tactical” or “battlefield.”
I assume you refer to the ICBM/SLBM weapons we’ve built.
The missile fields and nuke-equipped subs we still have are still in the process of being decomissioned, but don’t expect to see them all go. There are and always have been more of a deterrent than a weapon. Hopefully, they will always never be a weapon, but the military can’t afford to be that optimistic.
I don’t know. The deterrent was in quantity, not size.
What would the damage be if the biggest bomb in existence were dropped in the geographic center of Iraq? Or on Bagdad?
I have no idea.
Peace,
mangeorge
Are you talking direct effect, fallout, radiation pollution…?
Our nukes are typically MIRVs (Multiple Independent Re-entry Vehicles, if I recall correctly), so “one” “biggest” missile is actually more like 7 biggest bombs.
Assuming we’re talking about one true “bomb” dropped from a plane…
The direct effect would be to obliterate most of whatever part of Baghdad it was detonated over (not in). Not the whole city, but much of it. The nuclear fallout depends on winds and weather, but would probably cover much of Iraq and drift into neighboring nations. The effect of this fallout from one missile wouldn’t be disaster, but it would raise serious health concerns.
The most damaging effect would likely be the utter rebellion across the globe and likely unwilling demolition of major American population centers over the next decade, not to mention immediate expulsion from the United Nations, probably civilian uprising or revolt, etc. 
Hrm, where are those threads in adopting a English accent…
As accuracy of guidance systems and electronic warfare countermeasures improved, missile throw weight proportionately decreased. The super-nukes you’re referring to (in the 20+ megaton range) no longer fit into this nation’s nuclear doctrine. Being able to insert a thermonuclear within a few dozen yards on your target obviates the need for 30-megaton warheads.
Sad, but true, Dr. Strangelove, the days of “Big Mike” are over.
Does France have nukes? If so, is that why U.S, Britain, China, Russia and France are the 5 vetoing members of the U.N - because we’ve had the nukes the longest and basically this makes us able to force our will upon the other countries?
Also, is nuclear disarmament just a diplomatic thing to do…we’re never really going to disarm completely, so what’s the difference between 10000 Nukes and 10000?
Sorry, I meant the difference between 10,000 nukes and 1,000
Out of curiousity:
How large a crater would one 30, 50 or 100 megaton bomb actually make? How large an area of total destruction would surround it? Are we talking three square miles? thirty? three hundred?
Here’s a fun link for you, Polycarp. It lets you type in an address and select a weapon size, and it shows you a map with the zone of destruction superimposed on it.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/bomb/sfeature/mapablast.html
But I just found out that site isn’t working correctly now. Here’s a page with a lot of the same information, but it won’t superimpose it on a map for you:
Thanks, Polycarp, and Bob Scene. That’s what I was asking above. Blast damage. When I was a kid we were convinced that a single Hydrogen Bomb (always hydrogen ;)) could reduce California to rubble.
So I think the answer to the OP is that super sized bombs don’t have a role partially because they’re inefficient. Five twenty-megaton bombs would do a lot more damage than one one-hundred megaton bomb if they were targeted correctly. And they would be.
Peace,
mangeorge
No. The U.N. was born out of the end of WWII, and remember at that time the U.S. was the only country with nuclear weapons. Basically those five countries had done the most to fight Germany in WWII (or at least that’s the way popular history tells it) and therefore held more sway in the creation of the U.N.
And after a quick google I came up with this link: [Questions concerning the S.C.](www.nyu.edu/classes/UNcourse/fall00/ bestpapers/fassasipaper3.doc)
Probably some kids paper but it does answer some more questions and raises a point I missed. If you look at the five countries on the Security Council they are (or were) the five most powerful countries in the world. Giving them permanent vetoes keeps the Security Council from passing a resolution against one of them thus prompting another world war. Don’t know if I agree with that sentiment but it does seem to have a certain amount of logic.
IANA Nuclear Weapons scientist (although I’d love to be, but I don’t think I have the math skills), and I don’t see any reason to use such a device other than for wanton destruction. I suppose you could use one that size to cauterize an area before a nasty bio-weapon could spread. The only really good uses for nuclear weapons are bunker-busting, biological and chemical agent cauterization, EMP generation, as a deterrent, and sabre-rattling.
I saw part of a movie years ago where they used a nuke to cauterize an area contaminated by a biological weapon. I wonder(ed) if that would be effective? The thermal flash is very short, and it wouldn’t take much to shield the agent, would it?
I would think it would depend. The high spike is indeed short, but the area is still plenty hot afterward. When you’re talking about million-degree temps, it doesn’t take much to denature something, and I wouldn’t even give a virus or prion much of a chance.
The strategic nukes are the big boys. Tactical nukes are the ‘small’ (relatively speaking) nukes.
The ‘big’ nukes (multi-megaton) are mostly gone (maybe even completely) as already mentioned. Greater accuracy obviates their need.
The only ‘use’ they have is as a deterrent. Actually they do have one other use if deterrence has failed but if that comes to pass you are looking at Armageddon type stuff. You don’t fling strategic nukes for much reason other than to annihilate your enemy AND the bulk of their population.
The names escape me, but I recall that there were only a few passes through the Hartz Mountains which the Soviets could use in an invasion of the southern half of West Germany. I’m pretty sure it occurred to NATO that a nice big 20 megaton bomb would render such a mountan pass… impassable.
That general strategic option probably hasn’t been rendered obsolete simply by the dissolution of potential hostilities in central Europe. There are plenty of other places in which a single big nuke could effectively stop advancing forces: the Mitla and Gidi passes in the Sinai, as well as the highways passing through Bi’r al Jifjafah come to mind, as does the potential invasion routes through the Golan Heights. And of course the Khyber Pass is increasingly looking like a target for nukes.
Big-ass nukes could be especially valuable in desert warfare as well. A big blast could take out entire brigades or possibly even divisions with a minimum of environmental backlash (“minimal” being a very relative term in this case).
What, exactly, is the destructive force of a tactical nuke? small enough to just take out a building?
Small enough to be used against a tank. One tank, that is. These were talked about on the history channel.
The smallest nuke I know of is the Davy Crockett. It yields about 0.1 kilotons (or 100 tons of TNT) of explosive force. Pretty sure that would take out a few buildings in a downtown setting and then some.
For comparison the largest conventional bomb in existence is the
BLU-82 (also called Big Blue 82 and sometimes Daisy Cutter). It holds 12,600 pounds of explosives. While those explosives are likely more powerful than TNT consider that the Davey Crockett is on the order of 200,000 pounds of explosives. You do not want to be close when that goes off.